About your Search

20121114
20121114
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
age to 67 and cap benefit hikes under social security. obama and house speaker john boehner are due to begin negotiations friday on averting the so-called fiscal cliff of expiring tax cuts and automatic spending reductions set to take effect at the end of the year. speaking in washington, treasury secretary timothy geithner stressed the urgency of reaching a deal. >> i know the cliff is unattractive. it would cause a lot of damage to the american economy. a careful about those who argue and urge for "let's just extend while we negotiate." it will leave a different source of uncertainty on the table, like what would give the people the incentive to come back and do something tough. >> millions of workers in europe have joined a general strike today protesting the wave of spending cuts and tax hikes that has swept the continent in the name of austerity. spanish and portuguese workers are coordinating their strike with work stoppages also planned in greece, italy, france and belgium. we will have more on the strike after headlines. closing arguments have ended in a pretrial hearing to
the tone of speaker boehner's remarks was very good. i also want to see what the substance was. what i do know is that different people heard this remark and interpret it in very different ways. grover norquist said he thought it was a good statement by speaker boehner, and other people who think we need to generate additional revenues to have a deficit reduction plan also say he made a good statement. it would be good to know exactly what he is talking about. >> how about for you? the whole premise of tax cuts, as we talked about the last 24 hours, is to eliminate deductions and bring down rates. that is what happened in 1986. >> i am talking about, what is our starting point in terms of the rates? what are we negotiating from? are we negotiating down from 35% or from 39%? i want to emphasize this point -- simpson-bowles, go look at it. they assume the amount of revenue that you would achieve if you allow the tax rate to go up. their tax reform plan is built off an assumption that you will get the amount of revenue as if he started at 39% and went down. they begin with what they call the
tax increases one way or another. bill: do you think that flies in the u.s. house? does john boehner have the votes to match that? >> the white house figures he will portray himself as the chapel yofnt middle class and the republicans are going out for the rift and he feels he can largely beat hem into submission. when they sit down to the bargaining table they might make some changes but he will want to come out of these negotiations as having largely won them and leaving scraps for the republicans. what the republicans have to hit back with is the way you increase revenues is by having rising incomes. you don't get that by higher taxes on a weakening economy. bill: the president plans to open the talks using his most recent budget proposal. wasn't that the budget that got zero votes in the senate? >> he's going to exploit it for all it's worth. you could come to an agreement using bowles and simpson and reducing rates so everyone declares victory. you have got more revenue but the rates don't go up. but i don't think the president is interested in that. if you had normal people doi
incomes now and ensuring security for the future. hthis is the end of vision that speaker boehner without for the country last week. i cannot think why the present would not embrace it. someone said we should go over the cliff. just go off of the cliff. hope for the best. i do not think that is what the american people had in mind when they went to the polls last week. but they had in mind is that we put the contest of the past two years behind us and work it out. the best way forward in the way that will lead to jobs and growth, a smaller deficits, and you were political fights is to keep everyone where they are. figure out a way to avoid the automatic defense cuts scheduled to hit at the end of the year without putting a penny last thing we promised and committed to the entitlement reforms that we all claim we want. a simpler tax code that lowers rates and cuts special interest loopholes would create jobs and result in more revenue without raising anyone's rates. we know this because we have seen it before. it actually works. i do not think washington should get any of that extra revenu
boehner still in the house. you are still at the treasury. the president is back in the office. harry reid is in the senate with more seats -- why should i believe this will end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> i will not try to talk to about optimism, but let's look at what has changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging relief for the first time in this debate in public that they would agree to increase revenues as part of an agreement to help restore fiscal balance. that is a very important change. you could debate what has motivated that change, and of course it is true that that approach has very popular substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit from a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform. putting that off indefinitely is not good for the country. that is important, too. i think, again, if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying, there is a lot of consensus on the things that would be good for the economy now. that is98% of amer
with boehner. but might be the beginning of bargain point. but you get 820 billion. so there's another 800 billion. at this point, the others are saying no cuts to medicare, social security, or anything else. and they have to find another 800 billion. >> the president did not say -- >> we know he has to cut some of those. >> my guess is the gop is saying they're looking at a trillion dollars as the number. >> and you saw what paul ryan said. the house was re-elected. so people re-elected those people in the house for a reason. it's a nonstarter. it's not going to happen. it's not going to be 1.6 billion. 1.6 trillion. to get to four trillion, that would be 2.4. so we said that. he'll go not 3-1 like simpson bowles. he's go one and a half to one. >> that's not going to happen either. >> but what bothers me -- >> the problem is nothing is going to happen. >> what bothers me is i do think you can get to a point where you raise taxes too much and you don't cut spending enough, where you're just funding entitlements by raising taxes and you don't do anything about it. if he had his way, i reall
a tax increase. if speaker boehner says i'll go along with that, that's where we'll start. i think the conversation is under way for a solution. >> ifill: senator durban, are you kicking the can down the road by only talking about the tax ruts and not talking about the spending cuts as well? >> let me tell you something, i was on the bowles simpson commission, i voted for it, bipartisan commission that included spending cuts as well as revenue increases. i know that to reach four or five trillion dollars in deficit reduction you need to put everything on the table. not just taxes for the wealthy. that's an important piece of it, but it isn't all of it. you need much more. >> the president said today in his news conference that he was very familiar with the literature on the overreach of presidents in their second term or their potential for overreach. do you think that's a possibility here? do you see that? we have heard, for instance, republicans say, hey, we can talk about immigration now. is it possible that some things actually are in reach? >> oh, i do think -- i think immigra
. john boehner still in the house for the time being at the treasury. the president is back in the white house and harry reid is in the senate with a few more seats. why should i believe this would end any more positively than the summer of 2011? >> because again i'm not going to try to talk to you in optimism but let's look at what's changed. you have republican leadership acknowledging for the first time in this debate in public that it's agreed to increase in revenues as part of an agreement that helps restore fiscal balance. that's a very important change. you can debate on what motivated that change, and of course it's true that approach has been a popular very substantial support among the american people. you have a much greater recognition that the economy would benefit on a carefully designed balanced agreement on fiscal reform and putting it off indefinitely is not good for the country. that's important, too. and i also think again if you listen carefully to what people are saying and what many politicians are saying with many elected representatives are saying there's a lot of
in congress are another. they have to come together. speaker boehner said he's willing to entertain more revenue. the president should take him up on that offer and they ought to come together and find some way through this. the republican party has got to take a good luook at what its future holds but a good start will be coming together to solve this problem. >> governor, nancy pelosi of course out this morning says she's going to run again for some leadership in the congress. is that a signal that the white house is going to remain more partisan perhaps than some hope? >> actually, i don't think so. you know, nancy pelosi was the one who produced the votes for the financial bailout. you all recall that. there weren't republican votes even when president bush proposed it and secretary paulson. nancy found the votes. nancy is good at finding the votes out of our progressive wing and the president will need votes from our progressive wing and nancy is a good person to do that. >> we'll see how things go down this afternoon and later in the week. governor, lanhee good to see you back. don
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)